The Real Clunkers in This Deal: Why "Cash for Clunkers" is a Terrible Idea

Image by Thomas Hawk via Flickr

Reason Magazine:

Cash for Clunkers has been a thrilling moment for advocates of expanded government, who say it proves what we can accomplish when our leaders put their minds to it. They are absolutely right, says Steve Chapman. The program proves the federal government is unsurpassed at two things: dispersing money and destroying things.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/135318.html

George's House vs Al's House

I don't usually bother posting political satire, but I enjoy this one. Gore's "politicians are the most arrogant people on earth" reality bears highlighting, and while Bush comes out looking pretty good on this one, there's certainly plenty of "we'll tell you how to live" politician arrogance on his part - it just doesn't show up in this spot.

See below for concluding comment. -- mac

A Tale of Two Houses

House #1
A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400 per month.. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern 'snow belt' area. It's in the South.

---

House #2
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every 'green' feature current home construction can provide.. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled in a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground..

The water (usually 67 degrees F) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter theelectricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape... The heating/cooling system is so efficient that initial plans to install solar panels were cancelled.
~~~~~
HOUSE =1 is outside of Nashville , Tennessee ;
It is the abode of the 'Environmentalist' Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford , Texas ;
It is the residence of the former President of the United States , George W. Bush.

Yes, it's "An inconvenient truth.."

I sure hope this gets passed to everyone!
And, yes .... I DID check Snopes prior to forwarding


You can verify it at :http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

I did, and it's true, apparently.

As a libertarian, I'm no friend of George's or Al's or their respective parties. I can't overlook, however, the reality that I never heard about Bush's politically correct house (although Gore's un-correct house has been mentioned in the news) -- and I can't help thinking that if this were reversed, both Bush's power-hungry house and Gore's Earth-loving house would get equal time. Bush, being both a conservative Republican and a bad guy, doesn't get credit for the occasional things he does right.

States are Always "Surprised" When the Bubble Bursts

Image via Wikipedia

This from Cato Institute's Cato@Liberty blog:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/03/states-are-always-surprised-when-the-bubble-bursts/

Posted by David Boaz

Steve Chapman points out in the Chicago Tribune:

The crisis in state budgets is not an accident, and it wasn’t unforeseeable. For years, most states have spent like there’s no tomorrow, and now tomorrow is here. They bring to mind the lament of Mickey Mantle, who said, “If I knew I was going to live this long, I’d have taken better care of myself.”

If they had known the revenue flood wasn’t a permanent fact of life, governors and legislators might have prepared for drought. Instead, like overstretched homeowners, they took on obligations they could meet only in the best-case scenario — which is not what has come to pass.

Over the last decade, state budgets have expanded rapidly. We have had good times and bad times, including a recession in 2001, but according to the National Association of State Budget Officers, this will be the first year since 1983 that total state outlays have not increased.

The days of wine and roses have been affordable due to a cascade of tax revenue. In state after state, the government’s take has ballooned. Overall, the average person’s state tax burden has risen by 42 percent since 1999 — nearly 50 percent beyond what the state would have needed just to keep spending constant, with allowances for inflation.

Would that other journalists would show such good sense when governors and legislators moan about the draconian budget cuts they’re being forced to make, taking their state budgets back to the dark Dickensian days of 2003 or 2005.

David Boaz • August 3, 2009 @ 3:27 pm

Who favors judicial activism? Everybody, really...

"The truth is that both conservatives and liberals do not really disfavor judicial activism. What both the left and the right really dislike is the neutral application of constitutional principles when it thwarts their policy goals."

----Becky C., conservative/libertarian blogger

A few political quotables: The arrogance of health care "reform," the inrationality of raising minimum wages in a recession, the failure of light rail

"How do these arrogant, presumptuous politicians believe they can know enough to plan for the rest of us? Who do they think they are? Under cover of helping uninsured people get medical care, they live out their megalomaniacal social-engineering fantasies -- putting our physical and economic health at risk in the process.

"Will the American people say "Enough!"?

"I fear not, based on the comments on my blog."

John Stossel, Arrogance, July 24, 2009

--

[If raising the minimum wage helps employees...]

The federal government is trying to strengthen the U.S. auto industry. So here's a great idea for what it can do: Tell the Big Three to raise their prices across the board.

....[W]hy set the minimum at $7.25 an hour? Why not $17.25? Why not $37.25?

The suspension of disbelief required to support the minimum wage will only take you so far. It's impossible to deny that if it were illegal to pay someone less than a mere $36 an hour, a lot of jobs would vanish. ."

--Steve Chapman, 'The Dangerous Minimum Wage Mirage.'

--

Seattle's new, horrifyingly expensive light-rail system -- $2.4 billion to go 14 miles, and only downtown to the airport -- has outlawed auto parking at the stations or anywhere within a quarter mile thereof. They want people to take the (reduced) bus lines, or walk, or bike. To a line that takes them to the airport. Like all city light rail lines, it is wildy over budget, and will reduce congestion not at all. Read more.

Why We Should Just Abolish Health "Insurance"

The following from Becky C's blog (about to be discontinued, or I'd give a link).

The headline is provocative, but hear her out -- she has a REALLY sensible point to me. One that I've argued fruitlessly for years: Our health insurance system is idiotic -- it's not even insurance!

Take it away, Becky:

---

I have an idea, lets abolish health insurance. And Medicare along with it.

Surely Becky has flipped her libertarian lid.

I don't really think so. It seems if we have medical insurance we should have food insurance as well.

Insurance is designed to cover risks that don't usually happen, but if they do it is devastating to a person. So people pool their resources in a risk pool, and those who suffer unusual devastation are covered.

That is not the way health insurance works. It covers everything—from sore throats, sprained toes to the truly catastrophic.

Coverage of medical catastrophes makes a lot of sense, that is the idea behind insurance.

But coverage of mundane and everyday medical care makes as much sense as having food insurance. We would go to the grocery store and show the checker our food insurance card, and the public or private carrier would take care of the tab.

We probably would not even notice what the actual tally was.

In fact, if I had food insurance I would probably choose steak over hamburger.

And that is the problem with health insurance.

There is no incentive on behalf of consumers to pay attention to costs, and no incentive on behalf of doctors and the medical industry to keep costs in line.

And this has been the real reason that medical costs have become out of control in the last forty years.

It was not so long ago that people paid for medical treatment out of their own pockets. Doctors made a decent salary like other professionals such as lawyers, dentists and veterinarians.

But there were not the obscene amounts of money involved.

Health insurance started with the demands of the trade unions, and then it spread throughout the economy.

The federal government then got into the act with Medicare. Can anyone explain to me why every single person over the age of sixty-two should get government sponsored health care regardless of their income or means?

My god--as a group, they hold the bulk of the nation's wealth.

Yes, there are poor elderly people, and I do think there needs to be something like a greatly overhauled Medicaid system to take care of the poor, regardless of age.

But there is no logical or economic reason for the government to provide free medical care to Warren Buffett. It is entirely political.

Private Health Insurance and Medicare (along with the mismanagement of the Medicaid system) are the cause of our current woes.

The solution is simple.

Dump 'em.

Obama Should Stay the Heck Out of Iran!

Image by BL1961 via Flickr

The President of the United States, according to headlines in the June 23, 2009 papers, expressed his outrage and dismay at the Iranian government's actions in its ongoing riotous dispute with its democracy-minded people. He has, however, no business expressing an official opinion about Iran's bad behavior.

We must make an effort to separate our feelings as people from the appropriate acts of our government. As individuals, we most of us deplore how the Iranian government is treating its people. The President, as head of our government, has no business with Iran's internal problems and should keep quiet, as should all American government officials.

Of course, the US government cares about what happens, mainly in our own self interest: We'd love to see the government of Iran change into one that respects Western values more, and we'd even more like to see the power of the mullahs curtailed. With luck, they might interfer less in Iraq and in Isreal and environs.

However, we are half a world away from that area. We cannot help the Iranian people by government action; imagine how embarrassing it must be for Iranian patriots to be backed by The Great Satan!

We are in the middle of an awful conflict in Iraq that started with righteous indignation and a desire for revenge and defense, and has degenerated into a ludicrous disaster and a smear on the good name of our country. You'd think we'd learn, wouldn't you?

Remember, we had an election a few years ago that many people think was stolen from the rightful winner, with the acquiescence of the Supreme Court. I'm sure the Democrats would have welcomed assertions on th

Image by US Army Korea - IMCOM via Flickr

eir behalf from the mullahs and government of Iran at the time, yes? Certainly, the government of Iran has been impacted very much since then by the guy who actually took office in the US, so they sure have an excuse!

In North Korea, we find ourselves making efforts to force Japan, China, and S0uth Korea to take the lead in solving the problem. (The North Koreans, no fools, insist that the US take the lead; they love how easily we are mislead and how readily we accept lies at face value.) Really, we need to butt out of that whole mess too -- yes, North Korea could, maybe, lob a missile at Hawaii; why on earth they'd do that I don't know, and neither does anyone else. If we didn't have a mutual defense pact with South Korea and with Japan, and if we didn't have troops in both places, the North Koreans would be no more interested in us than they are interested in bombing Switzerland. Then maybe it would be time for Japan and China to figure out how to deal with those nuts up north.

Is there really no place on Earth our government does not consider game for meddling? Can we not mind our own business? If you would only keep in mind that every time you concede to the government the job of interfering somewhere overseas, that excuse is used not just by the guys in charge today, whom you trust, but by whatever knucklehead we voters fall for in the future! Use your head! Be afraid!